Silent but Dangerous

According to Brad Greenberg of GetReligion.org, The Los Angeles Times has under-covered and under-praised the Southern California Megachurch phenomenon. Greenberg suggests that while there exists a dragon in LA's backyard, the Los Angeles Times has treated it like a small lizard, at best.

Although Greenberg finds the attitude towards the movement unjustified,to me the media's slightly negative treatment seems understandable.

The "Southern California Bible Belt" stretches from LA to San Diego, including well over 100 megachurches (those with over 2000 members)--the most in the country. But while the area boasts remarkable spiritual density, the cause may not necessarily be a religious revolution.

Perhaps the root cause of the megachurch expansion is an economical one. Orange County, the primary church hotbed, is largely republican and contains mostly upwardly-mobile middle class. It makes sense that in a megalopolis like the LA-San Diego divide that megachurches would present the best spiritual opportunity for the yuppies.

If the main factors in the mega-religious revolution are economical, it's easy to see why the media might give a big "so what?" to the symptoms of the times.

Holding back the Flood

It is easy to imagine why Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, is angry at the Simpsons and the FOX station. The Simpsons do not always hold back their irreverent jokes, especially when directed at the Church. It's no surprise that Donahue has made a stink about the latest jab at the Eucharist.

But how can you blame the Simpsons for making jokes about the Holy group? And shouldn't they expect this?

After all, the Church holds to beliefs that are directly contrary to the intuitive judgments of science. The Church stresses things that are largely unobservable, something that hits nerve with an empirically-minded population. Shouldn't the Catholic church expect such laughs at their activities that, to modern standards, are borderline absurd?

In some ways, jokes are far better than outright persecution. Perhaps, Catholics should be grateful for both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.

Let live and die

Let's agree to disagree

This seems easy enough. At least according to Ramdas Lamb, a religions professor at the University of Hawaii.

If we all let our doctrinal differences be as they may, focusing instead on more pressing and realistic needs, Lamb thinks the world will be a better place.

However, this solution might not be so easy. The religions that cause the most stir, fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam, revolve around doctrinal distinctions. They are also inherently proslytizing religions. To tell a Christian or Muslim to stop caring about Theology and stop making other people agree is essentially telling them to give up their faith.

Peaceful coexistence is death for fundamentals.

Straw Clergyman

From my possibly primitive understanding of warfare, I still know one thing: the best way to defeat your enemy is to know him. A misunderstanding of your enemy can prove fatal. The same is true in argumentation. Attacking a straw man can lead to either false victory or early defeat. When it comes to religion, certain groups find it easier to attack a straw man than to take on the beast in all her might. This is especially true of atheists towards religious groups.

Dawson makes the case that atheists often characterize religion in oversimplified ways, making it easy to attack. Responses by the church are often met with at least a dose of cynicism. In some ways, however, the church should expect this.

It is surprising, however, that people who pride themselves on intellectual honesty commit such obvious logical fallacies.

endorsements

Sports stars are great for endorsing your product. All that hard-work, fun, All-american success wrapped into an attractively built flesh makes a promising stage for any item--whether it's deodorant or gatorade. And what do the athletes get for their pitch? Money. And who can blame them for doing it considering that tacking on money to more money is down-right American--perhaps even plain-human. But what do athletes get when they endorse God on the air?

They get spiritual capital and lots of it. When they say,

Buy my religion and it will confer you similar benefits like fame and fortune

they don't get paid in cold hard cash, they get paid in spiritual reward--'cause God's good for it.

Next time I create a religion, I will make sure to use athletes as my spokesmen.

shrugging things off

When R. Crumb rewrote the book of Genesis in comic book form he created somewhat of a stir in the Christian community. Though he claims it was not

done for derision

it is hard to imagine that any pictorially-crude version of Genesis will not offend some holy-minded folks. And it has.

Genesis covers some

adult themes

and it is no wonder that drawing them out in comic form can make the Bible seem unholy itself. What is interesting about this story, however, is the relatively muted reaction from the Christian church. As of yet there are no letters to sue, motions of protest, leaders demanding the book to be burned, or any other rash response we could conjure up. For the most part, the Christian folks seem particularly docile.

This story, then, provides an appropriate comparison with the danish Muhammad-picture fiasco where there were protests galore.

Perhaps the differing responses have more to do with the religions themselves and not just how offensive the material is.

a response to Bill Maher and supporters

It's not that I don't agree with Maher's views concerning religion. Religion has caused what seems like more problems than solutions throughout history. I would not refute this sort of thinking, because I think it is entirely correct.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should vanquish every aspect of superstition--flushing the people's opiate down the drain. My worry though is whether this will be a slippery slope. If God is no longer real, what's next? Justice? This may seem far-fetched.

However, where is justice supposed to be? Is it objective? Is it wired into the fabric of the universe? Perhaps justice is something we all think is real and there is no such thing. If we are going to rid ourselves of things unseen and unreasoned, justice seems an ample place to go. Why should there be such a thing as fairness? Or even goodness? Perhaps it's all in our heads? Modern psychology seems to be paving the way towards a conclusion like that one.

If it's our fancy to dismantle things unseen, then I fear morality is next on the list. If we can stab religion because of textual inconsistencies, what happens when the day comes when we can uncover mental inconsistencies through mental imagining, etc?

This is not to say I'm for religion. Nor am I for morality. But what an interesting society will develop without either of these notions.

Maybe a small dose of Kool-aid is needed afterall.

Justifiably afraid

Religionauts are justifiably afraid of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' aim of destroying false notions like God, creationism, etc. give ample reason for fear. With every inch of popularity, Dawkins' ideas can reek havoc on those of faith.

One has to wonder whether Nietzches' words are coming to fruition,

God is dead, God is dead!

Religious groups are scrambling to mount a response, but they are far from pitting a chunk in the secular agenda's armor. Dawkins, Darwin, and countless other writers offer a simple explanation of how the world of organisms work. We evolved into what we have now. The rule of evolution becomes obvious from most angles.

On the other hand, the religionaut retort provides an explanation filled with exceptions and possible contradictions. Though this reviewer is no sucker for mud slinging, hypocrisy remains rampant in organized religion as well.

Looks like Dawkins' books could be producing more than just big profits.

unlikely career change

The last place you would expect a career journalist to end up is in the pulpit but that's exactly what Steve Scott has done at the shock of his peers.

Although he spent the bulk of his life doing journalism, Scott eventually has enough financial freedom to pursue a second love, the church. After getting some formal education on the stuff, Scott became minister. And apparently, he's not that bad.

But again, this is the last place you might think a journalist's career might go. Considering the events, people. and places they see it's hard to imagine that any journalist would have a heart for the ministry. If anything, devout atheism seems more appropriate.

This case presents a rare time when someone can be cognizant of the church's issues from the outside, avoiding cynicism enough to become a member of the inside.

Latter-day freedom fighters

Mormons know what it's like to be persecuted. Recently, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS Church made a speech regarding religious freedom. He noted that Mormons are still under threat of their religious freedom. The comments are partially a response to the Prop 8 battle in California.

Initiatives provide an illuminating example of religion and politics, especially democracy. If mobilized in large enough numbers, a religious group can effectively vote their way onto the ballot and into office. They can do this with little respect to the secularized opponents. This, however, might not be an all bad thing considering the pride we take in democratic values. After-all, we do want to give what the people want. And if it turns out that they have a 67% majority towards extreme conservative social values, then they win.

That scenario, however, does not sound quite right. Though we would like to say that democracy gives us the ability to vote for who or what we want, would we want for us to be able to vote in social values tyranny. If this were acceptable, the smartest thing for any religious group would be to proselytize as many converts as possible, creating a massive voting bloc to rig elections towards certain, acceptable positions. But wait, hasn't this happened before?

From Paris with love

France's burqa troubles represents a coming issue in American politics. Sure, there's an ocean between that political nightmare and our domestic dreams. But there's a day when the French burqa-ban legislation will not just be a French issue.

It's hard to say exactly what will happen in the French government over what to do with the muslim headcovering cunundrum. A complete ban could create resentment and possibly even rebellion. Any prorated limitation might create said problems. The French government is in a sticky place to say the least. They have a substantial group of very-religious people living amongst a hyper-secularized government that values freedom. In the case of Islam, women and freedom are up for debate. Whatever the government decides to do, it could have very negative consequences.

By the book

If you were going to have a showdown in Lodi, CA it might as well be over God. According the NY times, Lodi has taken accustom to praying before city council meetings. As one might imagine, not everyone is pleased. Legal blows are ready to fire. Here is a very loose quote of the pro-side, "It's not big deal." And the opposing side, "it's a very big deal." In any case, this battle is headed to the courts very soon.

While the pro-prayer folks have a good point that the prayer is non-sectarian, non-divisive, and pre-gavel smash, I think there is an interesting issue to consider. Let's say for a moment that the prayer of the Lodi Councilmen does happen to work like they want it to. God, if He is there, listening, and willing, happens to grant all of the requests. How will that effect the meetings? It will be such that the proceedings have a heavy religious undertone, nay, an entirely religious undertone--hey, it's from God, remember. If that happens, then the charge of Church connected with State will uphold true--the policy will be divine.

Perhaps that example slights to the mythological blend, but a similar example could provide insight. It could turn out that when those parishioners ask for wisdom from the Almighty that they in fact devote themselves to acting according to some religious standard. Maybe this is just good wisdom, but maybe its a slippery slope.

ad absurdum

A recent Princeton study suggests people become more religious as they get older. The study confirms predictions of Mill, Weber, etc. and anyone who has ever been to a church. Here are some inferences I will make about the next 30 years if this and other trends hold true.

The baby boomers are turning 70, 80, and 90 in the next 30 years. The resulting geriatric phenomenon will render churches full and conservative on the rise. The Religious Right will triple in size, giving a 85% advantage to the Republican party in the 2020 election. The divine dictator that the group will elect will institute mosaic law, enact prohibition, and mandate the compulsory reading of The Purpose Drive Life. .

Hasidic Molestation

Molestation is endemic not just to the Catholic Church. While the priesthood's celibacy may be a contributing factor to the problem, sex abuse occurs in most sections of society. In some ways it should make perfect sense to hear that the realm of Hasidic Jews is not immune, but it is still surprising.

This case provides, I think, an interesting point to the human experience. While the Hasidic order did offer somewhat of a cover-up, sex abuse seems to be prevalent everywhere there are humans. Religiosity seems to give a shield from the media, but does not provide a vaccine to the crime.

Kid's movie not for Kids

Christianity Today's reviews may have a slight bias towards conservative morals, but it seems they got it right on the review of Where the Wild Things Are. The reviewer makes the case that the movie expresses themes that might be a little too stark for the virgin minds. Their motives however are hard to pin down. Could it be that the Bible or other moral code floating around has made a statement that kids should not watch certain movies? Perhaps the sacred texts mention a general rule that guides the reviewer's pen? Or could it be that it's just good judgment?

Though it might seem that the goal here is to disregard the review due to a biased jury, it's not the case. The review is plain good judgment. But my question is whether good judgment has to be clothed in spirituality for it to be powerful. Can things be bad for kids just because they are unhealthy, or does there have to be a divine decree?

trading Apples for Apples

Why are those religious folks so against gay-marriage anyhow? Slate magazine published an article several years ago answering the question of why gay marriage doesn't fly with orthodoxy. And you guessed it: either it's going to undermine the very fabric of our society or it's just plain wrong. Two hefty charges against love between the same-sex.

Steven Waldman, the article's author, goes ahead to slay these accusations. But he could have taken a different route to tearing down the arguments. The first one is especially interesting. Gay marriage, the religious people suppose, will destroy the structure of our society by cheapening the faithful bond between a man and a woman that apparently is society's base support. Waldman argues that gay marriage will not cause said calamity. I say, not only will gay marriage not lead to the downfall of the race, it wouldn't be replacing a natural structure anyhow. Though the research could turn out to be limited, marriage is arguably an artificial fix for societal problems that arise with populations over that of small-band societies. If marriage is somewhat symbolic now, then it has hard to say that it is living up to its solutonesque origination. And if marriage is merely symbolic, letting homesexuals marry would simply be replacing a symbolism for a symbolism. Society might thus be saved from doom.

a sucker for chaplains

Last week the Washington Post published an article on a preacher that has caught President Obama's eye. The guy is an ex-military type, broad-shouldered and all. And apparently he delivers sermons that the President finds "powerful." Perhaps, it figures considering the views that the preacher carries on his hip that are by no means pacifist. But this doesn't mean Rev. Carey Cash has a slight to militarism; in fact, that's not the issue. The issue is whether it's good that every so often Rev. Cash spiritually pumps up Obama to be some better person, or Christian, or leader, or whatever.(Most of these sermons happen at Camp David by the way). Should we want our Pres. to be given a spiritual pep rally even at all? What if he were to change his mind on a policy issue because some Rev. provoked a heartfelt transformation? Yeah, the Church might be separate from State but too close to Obama's ear, if even for a short time.